Revisiting Temperature Measurements at the Focus of Spherically Converging Shocks in Argon

  • M. LivertsEmail author
  • N. Apazidis
Conference paper


In this work, temperature measurements at the focus of spherically converging shock waves (CSWs) in argon are revisited. Spherical shock waves are produced inside a conventional circular shock tube, where initially plane shocks are transformed into spherically shaped shocks inside an axisymmetric smoothly converging section. As the CSW reflects from the window, the conditions become extreme so that the gas intensively glows. The light flash collected through the window by optical fibers is separately transferred into a diagnostic setup including a spectrometer. The gas temperature at the cone tip is then deduced from Planck’s fit to the registered radiation spectrum. Maximum temperatures of order of 30,000 K are thus measured.

In this study 1D axisymmetric numerical simulation accounting for nonideal gas effects (excitation, Coulomb interaction, ionization, and radiation) assuming equilibrium is employed to study the details of the shock implosion. The prominent advantage of the numerical approach over approximate method used in (Liverts M, Apazidis N, Phys Rev Lett 116: 014501, 2016) is that the calculation can be extended to trace the behavior of the gas behind the reflected (diverging) shock that inevitably dictates the temperature dynamics at the implosion focus. As a result, a comparison between calculations and experimental data demonstrates an improved agreement.


  1. 1.
    M. Liverts, N. Apazidis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 014501 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Guderley, Luftfahrtforschung 19, 302 (1942)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, in Fluid Mechanics, Course of Theoretical Physics, ed. by J. B. Sykes, W. H. Reid, (Pergamon Press, Oxford/New York, 1987), p. 406Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ya. B. Zel’dovich, Yu. P. Raizer, in Physics of Shock Waves and High-Temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena, ed. by W. D. Hayes, R. F. Probstein, (Dover, Mineola/New York, 2002), pp. 176–505Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Petschek, S. Byron, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 1, 270 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.W. Bond, Phys. Rev. 105, 1683 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Biberman, A. Mnatsakanyan, I. Yakubov, Sov. Phys. Usp. 13, 728 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.B. Whitham, Linear and Nonlinear Waves (Wiley, New York, 1974), p. 265zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Z. Zhai, C. Liu, F. Qin, J. Yang, X. Luo, Phys. Fluids 22, 041701 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Kjellander, N. Tillmark, N. Apazidis, Phys. Fluids 24, 126103 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H.R. Griem, Phys. Rev. 128, 997–1003 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P.L. Roe, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 18(1), 337–365 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MechanicsKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations